• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

taneugene

Members
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Neutral

About taneugene

  • Rank
    Member
  1. [url="http://www.gamesradar.com/diablo-iii-real-money-auction-house-announced-gold-farmers-stunned/"]Did you miss the announcement about Diablo III's Real Money Auction House[/url]? Edit: Not an MMO per se, but its close enough. Edit 2: I've also completely forgotten about [url="http://www.entropiauniverse.com/"]Project Entropia[/url] where you can exchange cash for in-game currency and vice versa.
  2. [font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"] I have no 3D TV and I do not own a 3DS. Given the choice, I would avoid 3D movies whenever I go to the cinema. So this is coming from someone who dislike 3D stuff with a passion.[/size][/font] [b]The headset itself[/b]: That thing looks heavy. It looks like it would be uncomfortable for people with glasses. Its also easier to accidentally step on that headset when you carelessly have it lying around after a gaming session. From what I've read about the headset, it seems that you are blinded and won't be able to see much of your surroundings when you put it on. A sure way to get into accidents (read below). [b]3D Headche[/b]: Part of the problem with 3DS was that is caused headache in some people. You do not want players throwing up after playing Wipeout on that headset. If players are complaining about minor headaches, you'll have people raging when they start throwing up because of the headset.[b] [b] [/b]Orientation Issue[/b]: Assuming the headset can be used with PSMove/Kinect/Wii games, players are more than likely to turn away from the signal detector due to the headset. Their body will move with their head because they are playing the game standing. The motion sensors would probably go haywire and not detect whatever you just did after you turned away from the detector. And then there is the problem of people moving around without being aware of their surroundings. More likely than not they are going to be breaking a few pieces of fragile furnitures or suffer some injuries when crashing into non-breakable stuff. [b]The Price[/b]: $750 per headset is way above what I'm willing to pay for a piece of puke inducing accessory. Edit: I also think that the headset only goes well with First-Person games, further reducing its overall value and usage.
  3. Interesting read > [url="http://www.shacknews.com/article/57889/lead-blizzard-dev-outlines-9"]http://www.shacknews.com/article/57889/lead-blizzard-dev-outlines-9[/url] First question: how are you going to tell a story? Dialogue box doesn't work well in MMO. Players normally speak to NPCs because they have a [!] or [?] above their heads. Even then, most players just skip the dialogue box and check their quest logs. The quest log only tells the player to "Kill X", "Go to Y" or "Collect Z". Whatever story you are trying to tell would probably get ignored if you rely heavily on those dialogue boxes. Second question: how do you hook your players into the story in the first place? I'll use WoW as an example. They have ample backstory and a rich lore, and a number of their quest chains are intricately linked to the lore and story. Despite that, I still ignore the story when I am pressed for time. I have a general notion of what the story is but I'll tend to ignore the details. Assuming I read every single dialogue box related to the quest chain, I would probably have forgotten them a couple of weeks or days after finishing that particular chain. Over the course of five years, I'll probably only remember major details like "something evil was lurking in the world"..."evil was born, and they call him Satan"..."the final boss appears". Anything inbetween is probably glossed over or forgotten by the time the end arrives. To put it bluntly, all MMORPG players have ADD and all of them want to get to the action bit as quickly as possible, with or without the story. Third question: how would you pace your story? There are those who blow through content like there is no tomorrow and would probably reach whatever endgame that is currently available in a very short time. Then there are those who would login once a day, complete one quest, and go to sleep. If your pacing is too slow, the former would have explored everything your game has to offer up till that point within a couple of months and move on without seeing the end. They may return periodically to check for updates, but there is no guarantee that they are still in it for a story that they may have likely forgotten. If your pacing is too fast, you risk shunning the latter types since they cannot keep up with the development. Worst still, they might be only halfway through the game when the end is near. Also, an MMORPG often has new players joining all the time. If they joined in the latter part of the game's lifespan, they would have to play religiously to make up for lost time. That means going through 3-4 years worth of story content in the remaining 1-2 years. Last question: what does the ending look like? Does it involve having a cutscene appearing at specific hours on a specific day/date? Or is it some final boss that is spawned a month before the server's last day, and players have 30 days to kill it? Perhaps its an apocalypse scenario where players drop like flies until everyone is killed? If the "end" only appears on the last day of the server, you run a very high risk of overloading your servers when everyone comes online at that specific time to see the end. Worse still, the final boss appears in one place and every player congregates in that place, causing massive lag to everyone wishing to see the end. More likely than not the servers would crash and ruin whatever ending you have planned. The other factor is varying time zones and playing time. If your end does involve a specific time and date, a number of your players would likely miss it completely due to time constraints.
  4. Groupies. Brotherhood. Society. Flocks. Schools. Herd. Ties. Links. Circles. Legion. Regions. Flags. Party. Realms. (Colour-)Skins. Kin. Tribe. Folks. Also, depending on the game theme, you can collectively call the races as "Word" and stick "Word" at the end of each separate Race-Name. (I.E. The races are collectively called "Magicas", but separately they are "Fire Magica", "Water Magica", "Earth Magica", etc.) Edit: Or you could call them "Kings", and each selectable faction goes by the name of the King. There is no restriction on "race" or "faction" themes as the "Kings" can mix and match their troop composition to create unique flavours. You can go all the way and let players become their own "King" and select their own composition of troops and buildings.
  5. [size="2"]1) [url="http://pu2.p-universe.com/pu2_site/pu2_frames.html"]Parallel Universe.[/url] [/size]2) [url="http://www.edgebee.com/games?id=1"]Sorcery Quest[/url] The first link is a browser-based text RPG. The second link is a flash RPG with similar travelling system (And might be quite close to what you are hoping to achieve). Basically the travelling/mapping system in both games consists of the player clicking on and moving into "squares". Whenever the character move into a new square, the system rolls for an event (NPC appearance, item get, battles, etc). What you can do for your game is create a large grid as your map base for the wilderness/dungeons and split the play-screen into 9 boxes when the character is travelling in the wilderness/dungeon. Players can click on any of the 9 boxes and the character will "move" into the clicked box (triggering events, if any).
  6. Go through it. The wall isn't really there. Its just your eyes playing tricks on you.
  7. Sensory deprivation, for one. (I have no idea what your "positive" buff is, so I'm taking a stab in the dark here with only "negative" conditions.) Sight: 1) Colour Blind - Picture slowly lose colours, ultimately resulting in a black and white screen. 2) Reduced vision scope - Everything is seen through a "Sniper Scope". Players can only see a small part of the whole picture and must move their mouse all over to see the picture. 3) Half screen - players can only see half the screen, and must switch to another "eye" to see the other half of the screen. 4) Sleep - Players have X seconds/minutes to see a screen before it blanks out. Players must then wait for Y seconds/minutes before they are shown the screen again. Sound: (Depends on how important sound is in relation to solving puzzles) 1) Selective Deafness - They can only hear one thing at a time. If the puzzle requires music, even better - split the lyrics (if any) from the melody, and only play either the melody or the lyrics at a time as the negative condition. 2) Noise - Players hear unnecessary stuff being mixed into the things they are supposed to hear. 3) Earwax - The volume of the sound slowly decreases and players need to do something to return the volume to its natural level. (Like clearing their earwax ) Sensory: 1) Losing touch - Players cannot touch anything. They cannot pick stuff up, cannot use items, cannot open doors. 2) Shaky hands - If the puzzle requires any form of stable hand-eye coordination, shake/sway their aiming frequently as part of the negative condition. 3) Confusion - Left is right, right is left, up is down, down is up. Things don't move the way the players expect them to move.
  8. [b]Short answer[/b]: No. [b]Long Answer[/b]: It depends. [u]Arguments For Persistent Damage[/u] If damage is not persistent, you might end up with a single super-powered creature that refuses to die and eats up every other creature summoned by the opponent. When damage is persistent, you allow weaker creatures to defeat stronger creatures through wear and tear. For example: non-flying creatures cannot block flying creatures, but flying creatures can block both flying and non-flying creatures. If damage was persistent, the flying creature would think twice before blocking a strong non-flying creature that could kill the flying creature in two hits. To put it in perspective: [b]2/2 Flying[/b] vs [b]1/1 Non-Flying[/b]: Flying creature wins 100% of the time no matter how many [b]1/1 Non-flying[/b] creatures you throw at the [b]2/2 Flying[/b] creature. If damage was persistent, the flying creature can block 1 non-flyer, or sacrifice itself to block 2 non-flyers. However, implementing persistent damage causes a creature to be mortal and necessitates a "heal" mechanism to restore the creature's health. That adds complexity to a game that you may or may not want. "May not want" is due to the fact that there is no "I Win" creature since all creatures are mortals that can be shot down by any other creature. Player must actively choose to keep the creature alive by healing it when it takes damage. First Strike still works regardless of damage persistancy. If the defending creature is near death due to accumulating too much damage, it will die if the weaker attacking creature has First Strike. If the defending creature is unharmed, First Strike doesn't matter because the damage dealt by the attacking creature cannot kill it anyways. Another thing to note is that if damage wasn't persistent, you may run into a very, very long game because creatures don't die or players are trading creatures 1-for-1. It causes a stalemate with neither player possessing enough of an advantage to swing at the other player. Any swing can be blocked/countered and as such results in a reset of their advantage. It is a perpetual +0 unless one player can find the key card to give them that much advantage over the other for the swing to be successful. [u]Arguments Against Persistent Damage[/u] If damage isn't persistent, it can result in a quick game. When one player manage to summon a large enough creature to beat on weak creatures and eat them for breakfast, the game is all but won, save for some creature-removing spells and what not. Even then, the dominating player would likely protect his creature to the bitter end, and each bite the creature takes at the opponent's life points is bound to hurt. A lot. And its more dramatic. When a strong creature is dropped and you have no answer to it, you go "Oh shit". Its quite satisfying if you are the one dropping the creature. In a game where damage is not persistent, a strong creature is a threat-generator which forces the opponent to reply to it or risk getting repeatedly chewed by the creature. If damage was persistent, the opponent can easily answer the threat by throwing his/her creature at the threat until the threat dies, saving their powerful removal spells for other targets. If damage wasn't persistent, the opponent is forced to use a sufficiently powerful spell to deal with the creature. They have no easy way out from it. That means you can bait the opponent into wasting spells on a creature with moderate threat, and when the threat is removed you drop a bigger threat. The opponent is constantly guessing about what other nasty things you have in store, and they need to optimize every spell they have and how best to use them. Adding to the previous point, they can also cause opponents to waste damage spell on creatures. If you had a creature that always redirects the first damage spell in a turn to the creature, and the creature has a sizeable chunk of health, the creature can and will reduce the efficiency of burn decks to a great degree. The opponent can either throw a bunch of burn spells at the creature until it dies, or choose to ignore the creature and waste 1 burn spell every time he/she wishes to unload his damage on you. Walling tactics are much more viable in a game where damage is not persistent. Players can setup 0/3 Flyers with 2 cost to protect themselves sufficiently. You can use the creature to permanently block an attacking creature even if your blocking creature have 0 ATK. The blocker will never die if you restrict it to blocking creatures with 1 and 2 ATK so that it completely neutralizes that one attacker, protecting your Life Points from that particular damage source. Non-persistent damage makes for a much more interesting game play (in my opinion). The danger and threat of a creature persists and force players to respond accordingly. The persistancy of a creature can turn into a scary thing in the right hands.
  9. I'm glad I've posted this issue and opened up a can of worms. It answered a number of my questions and provided me with some interesting insights. I have nothing more to ask, so this thread has run its course. Thanks to all who've contributed to the discussion!
  10. [quote name='Orymus' timestamp='1313444564' post='4849583'] Ah, I see I didn't explain myself well. Slots, in my example, were not tied to a specific turn. Nothing prevents a player from putting all 5 skills in the 5th turn area... [/quote] Fair enough. If you put it that way, it wouldn't work at all. Oh well, there goes the system.
  11. [quote name='Orymus' timestamp='1313427923' post='4849454'] @Taneugene It kinda works, but I feel like trading effect for damage will result in players choosing the latter. Afterall, the endgame is to defeat the opponent at some point. The problem I see is that the early combat will be a bunch of effects, and the late combat will still be a damage race. I really want to make effect-based spells a necessity throughout the combat, and not because you can't basically deal damage during that time (which is what would happen in the first early rounds with this system). [/quote] Eh, no. You said you have 5 slots in your game, thus only 1 skill will be at either end of that line. You can't have all 5 skills in slot-5, so players must still pick which skill they use carefully. And with regards to early game, you are free to place the skill in any slot you want. You can place it in slot-5 and get a huge damage boost, but you won't be doing much for turn 1-4. And you are doing damage with those front-slot spells, but you are not doing *alot* of damage with it. If the damage is crappy for the first-turn spells, you can choose to "Attack", yea?
  12. [quote name='Tom Sloper' timestamp='1313424106' post='4849436'] [quote name='taneugene' timestamp='1313423144' post='4849424'] In the book publishing business, you have people like JK Rowling making a billion dollars, but in the game industry you don't see a game designer/programmer/audio guy/artist making a tenth or even a hundredth of that. Doesn't that show how under-appreciated they are? [/quote] What it shows is that the REAL money is in being a company owner, not a foot soldier on a gargantuan team. If what you want is riches, then work your way up, form your own company, work the company hard for 10-12 years. Bingo, overnight riches. But the guys in the team will just get nice salaries (they won't get rich like Rowling, since they're on a team, not creating the whole thing all by their lonesomes). [/quote] I do see your point in that the process of game making involves more than a few person, and in the case of Triple-A stuff it usually involves an extremely large team to create one piece of work. But is it fair to say that I should not create Triple-A titles if I want to get rich from making games (large companies aside because I have no money to create one)? To put it in another way, are Triple-A games mainstream, or are they serving a niche market? [quote name=rip-off'] [color=#1C2837][size=2]Again, outliers. Yes, these examples show people making good money this way. But the other thing that they took on is risk. You don't hear of the legions who fail, only the few who succeed. If you go solo, you won't be paid if your product fails to get to market, or the market isn't interested, or a competitor undercuts you, or something similar. If you get a job working for a larger game company, you'll at least be paid for the time you put into a project, even if the project is later cancelled or fails in the market. But yes these smaller games show that it is possible, with hard work and dedication, to bypass the AAA publisher scene and still be successful. Capitalism rewards risk takers, not necessarily hard work or creative ability.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=#1C2837][size=2] [/size][/color] [color=#1C2837][size=2]Unsuccessful/unpublished authors do have a full-time job (this is based on what little research I did, so I may be wrong). You can't really do that if you work in the games industry because your full time job IS creating games (or whatever bits you are making that goes into the game). Your are bound hand-and-foot to the studio/publisher. I guess what I am trying to say is that the games industry, especially when publishers are involved, stifles creativity. Am I wrong in saying that?[/size][/color]
  13. [quote name='rip-off' timestamp='1313425701' post='4849447'] [quote] In the book publishing business, you have people like JK Rowling making a billion dollars [/quote] In the game industry, you have Notch/Angry Birds making lots of money. Notch/Angry Birds/JK Rowling aren't representative though, they are a statistical outliers. [/quote] Interesting that you mentioned Notch and Angry Birds. They cost less to produce (compared to AAA games) and does not go through giant publishers. Doesn't that make one think "the bigger the game, the less you make (money wise)"? [quote name='rip-off' timestamp='1313425701' post='4849447'] [quote] Doesn't that show how under-appreciated they are? [/quote] Appreciation doesn't come into this. It is a market, a crowded one, and there is supply and demand. [/quote] True that. Edit: Spelling.
  14. 8,9,10,11,12) Fair point. 13) But isn't this just like book publishing? I mean, the publisher does everything from printing the book, to marketing, and so on, and the authors just have to write the thing. In the book publishing business, you have people like JK Rowling making a billion dollars, but in the game industry you don't see a game designer/programmer/audio guy/artist making a tenth or even a hundredth of that. Doesn't that show how under-appreciated they are?
  15. @Hodgman [quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]If you don't want to sell your IP rights for money, then don't sell them for money! [/size][/color][/quote] Fair enough. [color="#1C2837"][size="2"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][quote][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]That depends a lot on the specifics of the publisher/developer deal. [/size][/font][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]Sometimes a studio [i]won't get any money at all[/i][/size][/font][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"] from the sale of a game -- they simply get paid a lump sum for making it.[/size][/font] [size="2"]Other times, the studio/publisher's contract will specify an amount of royalties that they'll get per sale. Sometimes there's conditions on these royalties, such as the game having to sell X copies first, or the game not being late, or the game [/size]receiving[size="2"] a certain meta-critic score, etc...[/size][/quote] [/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Publishers practically rule the game industry. Not only can they squeeze IP rights from devs, they can also charge players for second-hand games. That is just pure greed.[/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"][quote][/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I think you misread Toms quote. Only if the publisher demands it, [i]and then the developer agrees to it[/i], such as is common when a publisher hires a studio to work for them.[/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"][/quote][/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Yea, I did.[/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][quote][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]There's no 'standard' contact that says that publishers always end up owning all IP rights. Plenty of studios own their own IPs.[/size][/font] [font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]There's even some very strange cases, like with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint"]Operation:Flashpoint[/url], where the deal involved the publisher owning the [i]name [/i]of the IP, but the development studio owning the [i]rights to make sequels[/i][/size][/font][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]. This meant that their sequel legally had to be named "Arma" instead of "Flashpoint 2".[/size][/font][/quote][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]That is interesting. So developers do have some leverage against publishers. But that raises another point: normally, when you say "sequel", it usually looks like "Something Game 1/2/3/4"; or it can look like "Game X: The something else", [/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]"Game X: The other thing" and such. The Flashpoint series stayed true to the second type of sequel naming. On the other hand, if you name the sequel "Arma", first time players wouldn't even know its a sequel (or the second game of the series if they played Arma first). If you take the name away, is that really a "right to make sequels"? Or am I missing something here?[/size][/color] @rip-off [color="#1C2837"][size="2"][quote]Well, they're agreeing to be "screwed". The publisher is offering to bankroll them, they can turn down this offer freely.[/quote][/size][/color] [size="2"][color="#1c2837"]If you turn away and you do not have sufficient resources to develop the IP on your own, your IP is worthless. If you bow down to the bankrollers, your IP gains value, but you lose the IP. A hard place and a rock, eh?[/color][/size] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"][color="#000000"][size="3"][color="#1C2837"][size="2"][quote]It depends. Books and music can be commissioned (e.g. the score for a film). Even if you create the work yourself, you can end up signing away IP rights when want your book/album to be published.[/quote][/size][/color] [/size][/color][/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Seriously, publishers have it good, taking IPs left, right and center.[/size][/color] [size="2"][color="#1c2837"]@JTippetts[/color][/size] [size="2"][color="#1c2837"]This reminds me of [url="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-07-05-revealed-the-internal-emails-that-provoked-whistle-blowing-at-team-bondi-blog-entry"]Team Bondi and the whistleblowers.[/url] If their story is to be believed, there are people who worked on the game, couldn't take the pressure, decides to leave, and have their names removed from the credits. Is that even possible? Shouldn't they get partial credit for the work they have already contributed to the game? I refuse to believe they signed a document saying "you can remove my name from the credits if I quit halfway through the project". That is just nasty.[/color][/size] @Tom 3) I misread that. I thought you meant the one retaining the IP in the second half was the publisher, not the developers. My bad. On the artist part, I think the artist still retained the right to reproduce copies of the same painting, so he don't really have to get back his first painting. On the other hand, the publisher/developer relation is akin to being paid for the painting produce and then being forbidden from reproducing it. If the developer refused to give up his IP rights, he doesn't get work. It may be legal, but somehow I cannot see this as being ethical/morally right. The developer just don't seem to have a valid choice. Its either draw or die. And their compensation is a pittance compared to what the publisher earns from the developer's work. (Now that I look at it this way, maybe I should retract my previous statement about being fine with giving up my IP for the things I was paid to make.) 6) I like to read and I am inherently curious, so if there are any citations at all I would love to click those footnotes and see what new things I can find. I started with a simple RAGE reaction thread and end up going into some law-ish reading materials. Fun stuff. 7) Point taken. 8) You're saying I might still have a claim despite the IP being held under the studio's name?